The Influence of Assessment of Classroom Writing on Feedback Processes and Product vs. on Product Alone

Authors

  • Rachael Ruegg Akita International University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.16672

Keywords:

Teacher feedback, Peer feedback, Process-approach, Assessment of Process

Abstract

Although many second language writing classes use a process approach, anecdotal evidence suggests that assessment of writing in such classes often still focuses on the written product alone. This assessment practice continues despite specialists having recommended that both process and product be assessed. This study compares second-year university students in Japan who were assessed on feedback processes and product with others assessed on product alone in terms of perceptions of the feedback received. Perceptions were determined through a post-treatment questionnaire. Neither the assessment of the use of teacher feedback in revisions nor the assessment of the quality and quantity of peer feedback was found to have a clear benefit in terms of students’ perceptions of the feedback received. This finding suggests the need for further research to confirm whether the assessment of both process and product is worth the considerable time investment required.

Author Biography

Rachael Ruegg, Akita International University

Rachael Ruegg is a lecturer in the English for Academic Purposes department and the coordinator of the Academic Achievement Center at Akita International University. She is also a doctoral candidate at Macquarie University. Her research interests include instruction and assessment of writing, and vocabulary as well as learner autonomy.

References

Archibald, A. (2011). Writing in a second language. Retrieved 16th September 2011 from the Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies website: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2175.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various different kinds of feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning 27, 29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x.

Chiang, K. (2004). An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Retrieved 16 September 2011 from http://edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/journal/j3/10.pdf.

Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A.Wendin and J. Rubin (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning 57–69. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, A. & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing 155–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conrad, C. (2001). Portfolio assessment: The influences of the assessment criteria and rating process on holistic scores. Retrieved 16 September 2011 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/resources/working-papers/documents/WP20_WritingPortfolio.pdf.

Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R. & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualising corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 14, 445–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 235-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X.

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 29, 33–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587804.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, Process, Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32, 365–387. http://www.jstor.org/stable/356600.

Freedman, S. (1993). Linking large-scale testing and classroom portfolio assessments of student writing. Educational Assessment 1, 27–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0101_3.

Gearhart, M. & Wolf, S. (1997). Issues in portfolio assessment: Assessing writing processes from their products. Educational Assessment 4, 265–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0404_1.

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher and student variables. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and issues 185–205. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College composition and communication 33, 76–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/357846.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (1993). Questioning assumptions about portfolio based assessment. College composition and communication 44, 176–190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/358837.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory and Research. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (1996). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research 4, 33 – 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400103.

Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 185 – 212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System 25, 465–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom 57–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.

Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. Johnson, and D. Roen (eds.) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students 207–219. New York: Longman.

Nystrand, M., Cohen, A. & Dowling, N. (1993). Addressing reliability problems in the portfolio assessment of college writing. Educational Assessment 1, 53–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0101_4.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal 59, 23–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003.

Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 141-163.

Romova, Z. & Andrew, M. (2011). Teaching and assessing academic writing via the portfolio: Benefits for learners of English as an additional language. Assessing Writing 16, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.005.

Ruegg, R. (2014). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal: DOI:10.1080/09571736.2014.958190.

Ruegg, R., Fritz, E. & Holland, J. (2011). Rater sensitivity to qualities of lexis in writing. TESOL Quarterly 45(1), 63-80.

Ruegg, R. & Koyama, D. (2011). Confidence in writing: The effect of feedback. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching 21, 137–166. Retrieved 31 March 2011 from http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110008439899.pdf?id=ART0009681216&type=pdf&lang=en&host=cinii&order_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1382590439&cp=.

Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the teaching of English 31, 91–119. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171265.

Tsui, A. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 147 – 171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9.

Xiaoxiao, L. & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33, 24–40. Retrieved 16 September 2011 from http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/89/10042202.pdf.

Zacharias, N. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal 38, 38–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly 19, 79–101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586773.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 209–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1.

Published

2015-11-30

How to Cite

Ruegg, R. (2015). The Influence of Assessment of Classroom Writing on Feedback Processes and Product vs. on Product Alone. Writing & Pedagogy, 7(2-3), 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.16672

Issue

Section

Research Matters